Another reason to carry a gun

[SassyLady]

Perhaps this is what it will take to get people to realize they cannot gang up and attack the innocent.


Pennsylvania man, 65, fatally shoots teen who pushed him off bicycle


Published January 26, 2012



READING, Pa. – A 65-year-old man shot one teenager dead and wounded another after they pushed him off his bicycle and tried to rob him in Pennsylvania, police said.

The man was cycling on a trail in Reading, Pa., shortly before 11:00 am local time Wednesday morning, when a group of teens pushed him off the bicycle and two of them assaulted him, investigators said.

The 65 year old then took out a handgun and shot them both, the Reading Eagle reported.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/26/pennsylvania-man-65-fatally-shoots-teen-who-pushed-him-off-bicycle/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz1t6gVm9RS







Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/26/pennsylvania-man-65-fatally-shoots-teen-who-pushed-him-off-bicycle/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz1t6g15j6r

[ConHog]

I have mixed feelings. I gotta believe those kids would have left once he pulled a gun. I don't like the idea of everyone becoming quick draw mcgraw.

[fj1200]

I bet that man is an evil genius, a la Zimmerman, in being able to stalk those fine fellas who simply were looking for M&Ms and lemonade, goad them into attacking him, and then gunning them down. All of that while returning from a Starbucks where he attended a pro-gun rally with the sole intent of intimidating anyone who had ever felt threatened.

You've just got to be able to read between the lines sometimes.

[Dilloduck]

I have mixed feelings. I gotta believe those kids would have left once he pulled a gun. I don't like the idea of everyone becoming quick draw mcgraw.

That's the problem when feelings get mixed in with laws. I guess he FELT as if he would be killed had he not taken immediate action. The very same attack may not have evoked that response in another person.

[Little-Acorn]

I have mixed feelings. I gotta believe those kids would have left once he pulled a gun.
Were they shot in the back?

If not, then I'd say your belief is mistaken.


I don't like the idea of everyone becoming quick draw mcgraw.
How do you like the idea of everyone being an easy victim?

Next time someone in that area starts thinking about knocking an old guy off a bicycle and robbing him, maybe they'll think twice. And maybe they even won't try it... just in case.

That is by far the greatest benefit from this incident.

How many robberies now WON'T happen in the future, as a result of what happened here? It is impossible to tell, of course. But I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is far greater than zero.

And before you start adding up the total amount of money that won't be stolen in those robberies that won't happen in the future, and asking if that kid's life was worth that amount.... that's not the only thing at stake in a robbery. A robbery is violent, traumatic, frightening, demeaning, possibly even fatal to the man being robbed, and a deep violation of your own humanity.

Ask a woman why she should mind being raped - it's just a little semen, isn't it? She can wash that out!

(Catch my drift here?)

I don't like kids getting shot and killed any more than you do. But I don't like living in fear of being robbed by people I can't fight off, either. I'd much rather live where people who want to rob me, are in mortal fear of the consequences of doing so. If they decide not to rob me and my fellow citizens, then they aren't in the slightest danger from any of us - and that decision is ALWAYS up to them. And we'll get along just fine.

-Little-Acorn, an old guy who rides bikes a lot

[ConHog]

That's the problem when feelings get mixed in with laws. I guess he FELT as if he would be killed had he not taken immediate action. The very same attack may not have evoked that response in another person.

IMHO after reading about the case (what's out there so far anyway) I think this guy had no reason to fire. I 100% believe those kids would have left without shots being fired. And THAT is the point where a person no longer is using self defense.

Not every case is justified guys.


Were they shot in the back?

If not, then I'd say your belief is mistaken.


How do you like the idea of everyone being an easy victim?

Next time someone in that area starts thinking about knocking an old guy off a bicycle and robbing him, maybe they'll think twice. And maybe they even won't try it... just in case.

That is by far the greatest benefit from this incident.

How many robberies now WON'T happen in the future, as a result of what happened here? It is impossible to tell, of course. But I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is far greater than zero.

And before you start adding up the total amount of money that won't be stolen in those robberies that won't happen in the future, and asking if that kid's life was worth that amount.... that's not the only thing at stake in a robbery. A robbery is violent, traumatic, frightening, demeaning, possibly even fatal to the man being robbed, and a deep violation of your own humanity.

Ask a woman why she should mind being raped - it's just a little semen, isn't it? She can wash that out!

(Catch my drift here?)

I don't like kids getting shot and killed any more than you do. But I don't like living in fear of being robbed by people I can't fight off, either. I'd much rather live where people who want to rob me, are in mortal fear of the consequences of doing so. If they decide not to rob me and my fellow citizens, then they aren't in the slightest danger from any of us - and that decision is ALWAYS up to them. And we'll get along just fine.

-Little-Acorn, an old guy who rides bikes a lot

We don't kill allow citizens to kill people to send a message to future criminals. LOL.

Heck even the states are getting away from that position as they realize that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

[SassyLady]

Were they shot in the back?

If not, then I'd say your belief is mistaken.


How do you like the idea of everyone being an easy victim?

Next time someone in that area starts thinking about knocking an old guy off a bicycle and robbing him, maybe they'll think twice. And maybe they even won't try it... just in case.

That is by far the greatest benefit from this incident.

How many robberies now WON'T happen in the future, as a result of what happened here? It is impossible to tell, of course. But I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is far greater than zero.

And before you start adding up the total amount of money that won't be stolen in those robberies that won't happen in the future, and asking if that kid's life was worth that amount.... that's not the only thing at stake in a robbery. A robbery is violent, traumatic, frightening, demeaning, possibly even fatal to the man being robbed, and a deep violation of your own humanity.

Ask a woman why she should mind being raped - it's just a little semen, isn't it? She can wash that out!

(Catch my drift here?)

I don't like kids getting shot and killed any more than you do. But I don't like living in fear of being robbed by people I can't fight off, either. I'd much rather live where people who want to rob me, are in mortal fear of the consequences of doing so. If they decide not to rob me and my fellow citizens, then they aren't in the slightest danger from any of us - and that decision is ALWAYS up to them. And we'll get along just fine.

-Little-Acorn, an old guy who rides bikes a lot

I hope you are carrying, just in case something/someone tries to attack you.

Oh, wait ... how about carrying that book on NVC?

[ConHog]

I hope you are carrying, just in case something/someone tries to attack you.

Oh, wait ... how about carrying that book on NVC?

There is some middle ground. Sure , sometimes shooting is necessary and justified I just happen to believe that in THIS case it wasn't.

Obviously I'm willing to consider new facts. So I'm not just flat saying no one should ever shoot someone who is robbing them; Just THIS case seems like it was overkill to me (no pun intended.)

[SassyLady]

There is some middle ground. Sure , sometimes shooting is necessary and justified I just happen to believe that in THIS case it wasn't.

Obviously I'm willing to consider new facts. So I'm not just flat saying no one should ever shoot someone who is robbing them; Just THIS case seems like it was overkill to me (no pun intended.)

And, you are basing your belief on what exactly? There was a gang of kids .... they were close enough to shove him off bike and try to rob him. Perhaps if he had drawn the gun and just showed it to them they would have tried to take away and kill him with it. You're a previous LEO and you might have the training to keep your cool in the face of a gang, but this man might have been scared out of his wits. When someone attacks you it's hard to just say to yourself ... oh wait, they are just kids. In my mind, it's someone trying to hurt me and I'm going into survival mode ... not conciliatory mode.

[ConHog]

And, you are basing your belief on what exactly? There was a gang of kids .... they were close enough to shove him off bike and try to rob him. Perhaps if he had drawn the gun and just showed it to them they would have tried to take away and kill him with it. You're a previous LEO and you might have the training to keep your cool in the face of a gang, but this man might have been scared out of his wits. When someone attacks you it's hard to just say to yourself ... oh wait, they are just kids. In my mind, it's someone trying to hurt me and I'm going into survival mode ... not conciliatory mode.

I understand, but frankly if you don't have the tools to make rationale decisions about when to fire and when not to, you don't need to be carrying a gun. More people are killed by their own guns because they froze up when the decision had to be made; and people have been killed when it wasn't necessary. Yes, I understand we're all happy that the old man fought off the gang, but fighting off isn't the same as killing. NO ONE should ever shoot someone unless they intend to kill them, and no one should ever intend to kill someone unless they feel their LIFE is in danger. A bicycle and a few bucks versus someone's life? Even a criminals life? No.........

[Shadow]

And, you are basing your belief on what exactly? There was a gang of kids .... they were close enough to shove him off bike and try to rob him. Perhaps if he had drawn the gun and just showed it to them they would have tried to take away and kill him with it. You're a previous LEO and you might have the training to keep your cool in the face of a gang, but this man might have been scared out of his wits. When someone attacks you it's hard to just say to yourself ... oh wait, they are just kids. In my mind, it's someone trying to hurt me and I'm going into survival mode ... not conciliatory mode.

I would agree with this also. Maybe there is also a reason he now carries a gun,like maybe he has been attacked and robbed before. You can't really say a person should or shouldn't feel threatened with bodily harm if you are not in that situation with them and experiencing it in real time.

[Little-Acorn]

In my mind, it's someone trying to hurt me and I'm going into survival mode ... not conciliatory mode.

Good.

I'm sorry you have to do that. But I might be a lot sorrier if you didn't do it and then found out you should have, the hard way.

I guarantee that not every citizen in such a situation, will make the right decision. Especially when he's surprised, dazed, frightened, likely in pain, and has zero seconds to decide what to do.

But I'd much rather that every citizen in such a situation, errs on the side of his own safety INSTEAD of erring on the side of being too cautious and concilatory toward his attackers.

And if the attackers don't like that... well, maybe they should consider another line of work. As always, the decision whether to put the old guy into that situation, is COMPLETELY up to them. They don't have to do it.

And if they find out that the old guy is carrying, and even if they find he is a little quicker on the trigger than he should have been... that's too damned bad. Again, maybe they should take up a different line of work... BEFORE they find themselves in a (completely predictable and avoidable) situation they don't like at all.

Bottom line: The kid being dead, is the kid's fault, not the old guy's fault.

[ConHog]

Good.

I'm sorry you have to do that. But I might be a lot sorrier if you didn't do it and then found out you should have, the hard way.

I guarantee that not every citizen in such a situation, will make the right decision. Especially when he's surprised, dazed, frightened, likely in pain, and has zero seconds to decide what to do.

But I'd much rather that every citizen in such a situation, errs on the side of his own safety INSTEAD of erring on the side of being too cautious and concilatory toward his attackers.

And if the attackers don't like that... well, maybe they should consider another line of work. As always, the decision whether to put the old guy into that situation, is COMPLETELY up to them. They don't have to do it.

And if they find out that the old guy is carrying, and even if they find he is a little quicker on the trigger than he should have been... that's too damned bad. Again, maybe they should take up a different line of work... BEFORE they find themselves in a (completely predictable and avoidable) situation they don't like at all.

Bottom line: The kid being dead, is the kid's fault, not the old guy's fault.

Yep, to hell with some innocent bystander who might catch a bullet. And don't even pretend like it doesn't happen.

You are right, a criminal assumes the risk when they engage in criminal acts; but that doesn't make EVERY shooting justified. Not even close. We don't allow revenge shootings under our legal code.

[Little-Acorn]

And before you start adding up the total amount of money that won't be stolen in those robberies that won't happen in the future, and asking if that kid's life was worth that amount.... that's not the only thing at stake in a robbery. A robbery is violent, traumatic, frightening, demeaning, possibly even fatal to the man being robbed, and a deep violation of your own humanity.

Ask a woman why she should mind being raped - it's just a little semen, isn't it? She can wash that out!

(Catch my drift here?)


A bicycle and a few bucks versus someone's life? Even a criminals life? No.........

(sigh)

[ConHog]

(sigh)

Life isn't a video game. I pray you NEVER have to take another person's life.

[SassyLady]

I understand, but frankly if you don't have the tools to make rationale decisions about when to fire and when not to, you don't need to be carrying a gun. More people are killed by their own guns because they froze up when the decision had to be made; and people have been killed when it wasn't necessary. Yes, I understand we're all happy that the old man fought off the gang, but fighting off isn't the same as killing. NO ONE should ever shoot someone unless they intend to kill them, and no one should ever intend to kill someone unless they feel their LIFE is in danger. A bicycle and a few bucks versus someone's life? Even a criminals life? No.........

Well, we fundamentally disagree on this one. Those kids had a choice to lawfully go on their way and not assault this man. They made the wrong choice and now one of them is dead. What we have not heard about this case is whether the man felt his own life was in danger. You are assuming he shot them for stealing.

[Wind Song]

Any excuse to shoot your pistola.

[SassyLady]

Any excuse to shoot your pistola.

Defending one's life is not enough of a reason to shoot? I could have thrown the NVC book at them and perhaps that would have distracted them enough for me to run off and hide in the bushes like a good little pacifist. Here ... you guys, let me just throw my wallet and belongings to you as a I ride by to save you the trouble of assaulting me. That's even more of a NVC tactic.


I would agree with this also. Maybe there is also a reason he now carries a gun,like maybe he has been attacked and robbed before. You can't really say a person should or shouldn't feel threatened with bodily harm if you are not in that situation with them and experiencing it in real time.

Exactly, Shadow! Each person will feel different degrees of bodily harm. Maybe the man couldn't run very well and felt like the kids wouldn't stop at just robbing him.

[Wind Song]

Defending one's life is not enough of a reason to shoot? I could have thrown the NVC book at them and perhaps that would have distracted them enough for me to run off and hide in the bushes like a good little pacifist. Here ... you guys, let me just throw my wallet and belongings to you as a I ride by to save you the trouble of assaulting me. That's even more of a NVC tactic.

Look, you're talking to someone who doesn't own a gun and will NEVER own a gun.

[SassyLady]

Look, you're talking to someone who doesn't own a gun and will NEVER own a gun.

We know this about you, Wind Song.

[Wind Song]

We know this about you, Wind Song.

Believe me I'm doing my part to make life more wonderful for everyone else in the world by not owning a gun.

[SassyLady]

Believe me I'm doing my part to make life more wonderful for everyone else in the world by not owning a gun.

I truly believe you ... I cannot imagine what your world would come to if you owned a gun.

[Wind Song]

I truly believe you ... I cannot imagine what your world would come to if you owned a gun.

I would have killed the man who assaulted me five years ago, that's for sure.

[ConHog]

Well, we fundamentally disagree on this one. Those kids had a choice to lawfully go on their way and not assault this man. They made the wrong choice and now one of them is dead. What we have not heard about this case is whether the man felt his own life was in danger. You are assuming he shot them for stealing.

Youre correct sassy i am assuming he shot them for stealing bc thats how the evidence looks to me at this point. If it ultimately plays out that he had a reasonable fear for his own life thats a different story

[SassyLady]

I would have killed the man who assaulted me five years ago, that's for sure.

I believe you. I would definitely try to maim/kill someone who assaulted me. People know this about me. I put first husband's ex wife in hospital when she assaulted me. I do not take lightly having someone put their hands on me. I am a very vengeful person.

[ConHog]

Exactly, Shadow! Each person will feel different degrees of bodily harm. Maybe the man couldn't run very well and felt like the kids wouldn't stop at just robbing him.

Thats not enough reason to justify killing someone. You are allowed to respond with reasonable force up to and including killing someone if the threat justifies it. But its not just a matter of saying " i thought they might do more than rob me" there is a legal standard at play

Believe me i have no problem with reasonable force. But you cant deny that there are some nuts out there who act before thinking and some of them carry guns around

[Wind Song]

I believe you. I would definitely try to maim/kill someone who assaulted me. People know this about me. I put first husband's ex wife in hospital when she assaulted me. I do not take lightly having someone put their hands on me. I am a very vengeful person.

It's been very hard for me. To be a Buddhist and to have a killing rage like that for someone.

[ConHog]

It's been very hard for me. To be a Buddhist and to have a killing rage like that for someone.

At this point i doubt anyone believes youre a practicing Buddhist

[Wind Song]

At this point i doubt anyone believes youre a practicing Buddhist


So?

[SassyLady]

Thats not enough reason to justify killing someone. You are allowed to respond with reasonable force up to and including killing someone if the threat justifies it. But its not just a matter of saying " i thought they might do more than rob me" there is a legal standard at play

Believe me i have no problem with reasonable force. But you cant deny that there are some nuts out there who act before thinking and some of them carry guns around

I guess the DA thought the man was justified:



Police decided to release the 65 year old and charge the juvenile after consulting with DistrictAttorney John Adams (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/john-adams-president.htm#r_src=ramp), who attended the scene with forensic detectives, the Reading Eagle reported.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/26/pennsylvania-man-65-fatally-shoots-teen-who-pushed-him-off-bicycle/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz1t7AEBz17



It's been very hard for me. To be a Buddhist and to have a killing rage like that for someone.

I am not a Buddhist, but I don't think it matters whether one is religious or not ... having a killing rage inside is destructive.

[Wind Song]

I am not a Buddhist, but I don't think it matters whether one is religious or not ... having a killing rage inside is destructive.


No, it's not. Rage and anger are nothing but energy. It's not destructive at all. Judging it makes it destructive.

[ConHog]

I guess the DA thought the man was justified:

,and im not gonna get upset over the decision. I think the guy probably killed the kid unecesarily but will agree the da probably has a better handle on the case then any of us

[SassyLady]

No, it's not. Rage and anger are nothing but energy. It's not destructive at all. Judging it makes it destructive.

Then your religion is causing you to judge it and therefore, it is destructive for you.

[Wind Song]

Then your religion is causing you to judge it and therefore, it is destructive for you.


Nope, I'm not judging myself for having a part of myself that gets angry or feels rage.

[Dilloduck]

I would have killed the man who assaulted me five years ago, that's for sure.


remember


The first step is to recognize that the cause of anger is not what stimulated or triggered it.

[ConHog]

Nope, I'm not judging myself for having a part of myself that gets angry or feels rage.

Thatsa your entire problem in a nutshell. You judge everyone else and dont do an ounce of self evaluation

[Wind Song]

remember

Shut up Dillo. I'm not talking to you about this. We're not on that kind of terms.


Thatsa your entire problem in a nutshell. You judge everyone else and dont do an ounce of self evaluation

No one who knows me truly in my real life would ever say that about me.

[SassyLady]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Wind Song:

It's been very hard for me. To be a Buddhist and to have a killing rage like that for someone.


Nope, I'm not judging myself for having a part of myself that gets angry or feels rage.

Cognitive dissonance?

[ConHog]

No one who knows me truly in my real life would ever say that about me.

I in noway believe that. I imagine you are the most high maintenance friend in the history of friendships

[Wind Song]

Cognitive dissonance?

Nope. You just didn't understand my post and instead of asking about it further you JUDGED me.


I in noway believe that. I imagine you are the most high maintenance friend in the history of friendships


I'm not a high maintenance friend at all. I have a number of wonderful, deep, and long lasting friendships. My friends Mai Lang and Lincoln, Craig, Denise, Judy and Renee, Pat and Bruce, Candee.

And then there's the whole Buddhist community. Family.

[ConHog]

I'm not a high maintenance friend at all. I have a number of wonderful, deep, and long lasting friendships. My friends Mai Lang and Lincoln, Craig, Denise, Judy and Renee, Pat and Bruce, Candee.

And then there's the whole Buddhist community. Family.

I cant even begin to think sbout how exhausting you must be as a friend. Constantly having to tiptoe around your issues.....

[Wind Song]

I in noway believe that. I imagine you are the most high maintenance friend in the history of friendships


You'd be wrong. I have great real life references that say otherwise.

You're just mad at me because I'm not cuddling up to you as a friend. I don't trust you.

[ConHog]

You'd be wrong. I have great real life references that say otherwise.

You're just mad at me because I'm not cuddling up to you as a friend. I don't trust you.

I cluldnt care less if yoyre my friend and ive certainly not made any effort to have you as one. So that is just your imagination at work there. Or youre simply lying

[Wind Song]

I cluldnt care less if yoyre my friend and ive certainly not made any effort to have you as one. So that is just your imagination at work there. Or youre simply lying


Fine. You don't want to be friends. Don't be. Leave me completely alone. It's your choice.

[Little-Acorn]

Little windy has already ruined one thread, screaming for page after page about how she feels, egged on by various other forum members including me. And now she's well on he way toward ruining another.

Please stop?

[ConHog]

Fine. You don't want to be friends. Don't be. Leave me completely alone.

You do t decide who i respond to . Oh heres another hint. This is a message board im not friends with anyone here. Im friendly with some buts not the same as being friends. I was friendly to you until you made that an untenable position


Little windy has already ruined one thread, screaming for page after page about how she feels, egged on by various other forum members including me. And now she's well on he way toward ruining another.

Please stop?

Fuck you praised. Buddhw email me when u eant me to come back

[SassyLady]

Little windy has already ruined one thread, screaming for page after page about how she feels, egged on by various other forum members including me. And now she's well on he way toward ruining another.

Please stop?

Sorry LA .... I'll continue to beat the dead horse in the thread re Anger. :deadhorse:

[Wind Song]

Little windy has already ruined one thread, screaming for page after page about how she feels, egged on by various other forum members including me. And now she's well on he way toward ruining another.

Please stop?

What would make you happy? What are your needs? Would you like me to go elsewhere and no longer post on this forum?

I am happy to do so. I don't stay where I'm not welcome.


Fuck you praised. Buddhw email me when u eant me to come back

Are you drunk? You can barely type.


You do t decide who i respond to . Oh heres another hint. This is a message board im not friends with anyone here. Im friendly with some buts not the same as being friends. I was friendly to you until you made that an untenable position

Fine. You don't want to be friends. I get it.

[ConHog]

Are you drunk? You can barely type.

Contrary to your sterotype of the beer swilling wife beating hillbilly i rarely drink and never during the week. Im on my droid and its hard to type and edit

[Wind Song]

Contrary to your sterotype of the beer swilling wife beating hillbilly i rarely drink and never during the week. Im on my droid and its hard to type and edit

You are projecting that image of yourself. I'm not.

[SassyLady]

Contrary to your sterotype of the beer swilling wife beating hillbilly i rarely drink and never during the week. Im on my droid and its hard to type and edit

Droids..........ugh! That's why I don't post here when I'm on my tablet or phone. Takes too long and too hard to edit. I, too, thought you must be drunk.

[darin]

I 100% believe those kids would have left without shots being fired.


What leads you to that conclusion? The police didn't reach it; and they have a lot more evidence than anyone here.

You understand, right, pulling a weapon is NOT just to scare people away. Would you have preferred he fire 'warning shots'?

[Nukeman]

I have mixed feelings. I gotta believe those kids would have left once he pulled a gun. I don't like the idea of everyone becoming quick draw mcgraw.


There is some middle ground. Sure , sometimes shooting is necessary and justified I just happen to believe that in THIS case it wasn't.

Obviously I'm willing to consider new facts. So I'm not just flat saying no one should ever shoot someone who is robbing them; Just THIS case seems like it was overkill to me (no pun intended.)


I understand, but frankly if you don't have the tools to make rationale decisions about when to fire and when not to, you don't need to be carrying a gun. More people are killed by their own guns because they froze up when the decision had to be made; and people have been killed when it wasn't necessary. Yes, I understand we're all happy that the old man fought off the gang, but fighting off isn't the same as killing. NO ONE should ever shoot someone unless they intend to kill them, and no one should ever intend to kill someone unless they feel their LIFE is in danger. A bicycle and a few bucks versus someone's life? Even a criminals life? No.........


Yep, to hell with some innocent bystander who might catch a bullet. And don't even pretend like it doesn't happen.

You are right, a criminal assumes the risk when they engage in criminal acts; but that doesn't make EVERY shooting justified. Not even close. We don't allow revenge shootings under our legal code.
This is what I find funny, you and folks like you tell the average citizen they shouldn't be making these type of decisions on their own safety, yet when the police fire 90 rounds at a weaponless person those are justified, or when the police shoot at a suspect because "they" felt threatend. You tell us that as a private citizen we can't have those feelings and act upon them.

I don't care how well trained you are even LEO overreact and use excessive force all the time. I think the man did the right thing given the situation, he was attacted for riding his bike, he was shoved off his bike they tried to steal that and rob him which means they were not only throwing him from his bike but laying hands on him to get his wallet and threatening him. I'm sure if a bike cop was pushed off his bike and the aggressors threatened him you would be defending the actions of the LEO if HE shot them!!!!!!

[ConHog]

This is what I find funny, you and folks like you tell the average citizen they shouldn't be making these type of decisions on their own safety, yet when the police fire 90 rounds at a weaponless person those are justified, or when the police shoot at a suspect because "they" felt threatend. You tell us that as a private citizen we can't have those feelings and act upon them.

I don't care how well trained you are even LEO overreact and use excessive force all the time. I think the man did the right thing given the situation, he was attacted for riding his bike, he was shoved off his bike they tried to steal that and rob him which means they were not only throwing him from his bike but laying hands on him to get his wallet and threatening him. I'm sure if a bike cop was pushed off his bike and the aggressors threatened him you would be defending the actions of the LEO if HE shot them!!!!!!

Why did you just lie about my stance? Especially a lie that is easily disproved. There is a thread on this board from just a few months back where I opined that police who shot an armed boy at a school used excessive force in killing him and that IMO they could have taken him alive if they weren't in such a hurry. I was blasted for that opinion. Most on here saying "the cops did the right thing."

I didn't do a search to provide a link, but if my word that it happened isn't good enough I will do so.

[darin]

Why did you just lie about my stance? Especially a lie that is easily disproved. There is a thread on this board from just a few months back where I opined that police who shot an armed boy at a school used excessive force in killing him and that IMO they could have taken him alive if they weren't in such a hurry. I was blasted for that opinion. Most on here saying "the cops did the right thing."

I didn't do a search to provide a link, but if my word that it happened isn't good enough I will do so.

*Note* he's using "you" as in "folks like you" - I didn't read that as 'You, CH say this'...subtle difference; yet different.

[tailfins]

What would make you happy? What are your needs? Would you like me to go elsewhere and no longer post on this forum?

I am happy to do so. I don't stay where I'm not welcome.



Are you drunk? You can barely type.



Fine. You don't want to be friends. I get it.


Contrary to your sterotype of the beer swilling wife beating hillbilly i rarely drink and never during the week. Im on my droid and its hard to type and edit

Consider this the Swiss Army Knife of replies, it addresses both the original post and the interpersonal squabbles. The world has millions or even billions of people and events swirling around you. Should the guy that shot the thugs have done so? I don't know, I will leave that to the prosecutor. Now, with the posting wars, the same principle applies. By the sheer number of people writing posts, you're going to run into a few or more you don't like. Simple solution: Just don't respond. If you consider someone a troll, don't feed them. It's simple!

[jimnyc]

Believe me I'm doing my part to make life more wonderful for everyone else in the world by not owning a gun.

It's not doing a damn thing for me. And if you're peaceful as you say, then whether you own one or not ain't doing a damn thing for anyone towards peace. A peaceful person with a gun is still peaceful. Or are you saying that if you DID have a gun, you would suddenly become a drunken nut who shoots up the neighborhood?

[Wind Song]

No. Not saying that at all.

[jimnyc]

Thats not enough reason to justify killing someone. You are allowed to respond with reasonable force up to and including killing someone if the threat justifies it. But its not just a matter of saying " i thought they might do more than rob me" there is a legal standard at play

Justification is simply whether or not you thought your life was in danger. If you think you're possibly going to get killed or meet "grievous bodily harm" - then you are justified in wasting the criminal bastards.

[jimnyc]

It's been very hard for me. To be a Buddhist and to have a killing rage like that for someone.

Do practicing Buddhists run around using the "C" word? Odd.

[Wind Song]

Do practicing Buddhists run around using the "C" word? Odd.


What does this question have to do with the topic?

[jimnyc]

What does this question have to do with the topic?

You spoke of Buddhism in one of your posts, and made it clear in many threads that you are a Buddhist. I am asking whether or not it is normal to use the "C" word many times, do other Buddhists do the same?

[Dilloduck]

It's not doing a damn thing for me. And if you're peaceful as you say, then whether you own one or not ain't doing a damn thing for anyone towards peace. A peaceful person with a gun is still peaceful. Or are you saying that if you DID have a gun, you would suddenly become a drunken nut who shoots up the neighborhood?

She did admit she was glad that she didn't have one 5 years ago when she was asaulted. No telling what she would have done with it in a fit of rage.

[Wind Song]

You spoke of Buddhism in one of your posts, and made it clear in many threads that you are a Buddhist. I am asking whether or not it is normal to use the "C" word many times, do other Buddhists do the same?


You know the answer to that. You know why this one here used that term yesterday.

[jimnyc]

You know the answer to that. You know why this one here used that term yesterday.

So it's ok for a Buddhist to speak like a sailor, so long as they have good reason. But otherwise it's off limits for someone to name call towards them though, right?

[Wind Song]

So it's ok for a Buddhist to speak like a sailor, so long as they have good reason. But otherwise it's off limits for someone to name call towards them though, right?

You appear to have left over feelings and needs from yesterday's posting. Send a PM and stop highjacking the thread.

[jimnyc]

You appear to have left over feelings and needs from yesterday's posting. Send a PM and stop highjacking the thread.

No thanks, I'm comfortable posting right here. You don't want to answer the questions as it makes you look like a hypocrite and a liar. Stop playing the victim one minute and making demands of others and then running around being vile the next. Make up your mind. And don't blame just yesterday, this has been your MO all along, and at 2 other sites I see you posting at. You claim to abhor name calling, and you do it MORE than the majority.

[Wind Song]

No thanks, I'm comfortable posting right here. You don't want to answer the questions as it makes you look like a hypocrite and a liar. Stop playing the victim one minute and making demands of others and then running around being vile the next. Make up your mind. And don't blame just yesterday, this has been your MO all along, and at 2 other sites I see you posting at. You claim to abhor name calling, and you do it MORE than the majority.


Every day a new beginning. Continue to vent as long as you need to about yesterday.

[jimnyc]

Every day a new beginning. Continue to vent as long as you need to about yesterday.

Ok, we'll leave yesterday behind, ok shithead?

Surely you won't mind my pet name for you, it's a LOT more innocent than the words YOU like to use. :)

[Little-Acorn]

Please stop?

[Wind Song]

Ok, we'll leave yesterday behind, ok shithead?

Surely you won't mind my pet name for you, it's a LOT more innocent than the words YOU like to use. :)

Since you've decided to be rude all day, this is the last post you'll get from me.

[jimnyc]

Please stop?

What is it that bugs you so much about threads involving people or topics you don't like?

[jimnyc]

Since you've decided to be rude all day, this is the last post you'll get from me.

Thanks, now I know I've proven you wrong, and a hypocrite - AGAIN.

[DragonStryk72]

Guns are deterrents to criminals, hate to say it, but it's true. They know that what they are doing is wrong, but they've justified it to themselves. The only thing that really works with them is fear of the consequences of committing the crime. This is why the highest crime rates are always in cities like LA, NYC, and DC, where guns are pretty much non-existent, because you do not have to worry that the person you're robbing is packing heat.

It is not a matter of Wild West mentality, or a love of guns, violence, or shooting people. Criminals commit crimes because they believe they will get away with it, and have power over their victims. When that scenario plays out differently, such as when the victim is armed and willing to use those arms, suddenly crime is worth it as much. The mere presence of a gun, even unloaded, can be enough to make criminals back off.

[tailfins]

Please stop?

Please don't. And if telling your story here is not enough call 1-800-96-JERRY and tell him about it! If Dorothy does make it on to Jerry Springer, I say we take up a collection and provide the pies.

[Wind Song]

Guns are deterrents to criminals, hate to say it, but it's true. They know that what they are doing is wrong, but they've justified it to themselves. The only thing that really works with them is fear of the consequences of committing the crime. This is why the highest crime rates are always in cities like LA, NYC, and DC, where guns are pretty much non-existent, because you do not have to worry that the person you're robbing is packing heat.

It is not a matter of Wild West mentality, or a love of guns, violence, or shooting people. Criminals commit crimes because they believe they will get away with it, and have power over their victims. When that scenario plays out differently, such as when the victim is armed and willing to use those arms, suddenly crime is worth it as much. The mere presence of a gun, even unloaded, can be enough to make criminals back off.

It sounds like vigilante justice to me. What else do you call it when citizens take the law into their own hands and act like judge, jury and executioner?

[Dilloduck]

It sounds like vigilante justice to me. What else do you call it when citizens take the law into their own hands and act like judge, jury and executioner?


Then it must NOT be vigilante justice.

[Wind Song]

See lynching.

[jimnyc]

^See idiot

[ConHog]

See lynching.

Vigilante justice is the concept of civilians tracking down a wanted criminal. It has nothing to do with protecting ones self. Sheesh

[jimnyc]

Vigilante justice is the concept of civilians tracking down a wanted criminal. It has nothing to do with protecting ones self. Sheesh

Nor does it have anything to do with going after ANYONE that is non-criminal. The ONLY criminals in the aftermath of the Trayvon chaos are the black folks who are acting out like thugs. That's not being vigilantes, that's simply black thugs doing what they do best.

[Wind Song]

Nor does it have anything to do with going after ANYONE that is non-criminal. The ONLY criminals in the aftermath of the Trayvon chaos are the black folks who are acting out like thugs. That's not being vigilantes, that's simply black thugs doing what they do best.

Let's throw out the court system. Who needs a trial?

[ConHog]

Let's throw out the court system. Who needs a trial?

Why, Why, Why must you keep misinterpreting post after post.

[Wind Song]

Why, Why, Why must you keep misinterpreting post after post.

There are plenty of people here who support Make My Day law.

[ConHog]

There are plenty of people here who support Make My Day law.

What is Make My Day Law? You do understand that Dirty Harry is a movie character, right?

[Wind Song]

What is Make My Day Law? You do understand that Dirty Harry is a movie character, right?

Same thing as Stand Your Ground, but in Colorado.

[DragonStryk72]

There are plenty of people here who support Make My Day law.

That isn't what he asked you, WS. HE asked why you keep misconstruing his every post? It's a valid question.

[ConHog]

Same thing as Stand Your Ground, but in Colorado.

Incorrect.

Another piece of advice, stop lying in your posts.

[fj1200]

Maybe it was her attempt at humor.

:chortle: :chortle:

[DragonStryk72]

It sounds like vigilante justice to me. What else do you call it when citizens take the law into their own hands and act like judge, jury and executioner?

Go back through that post, WS. Point the exact moment where I mentioned word one about shooting anybody, or allowing vigilante justice. Allowing people to defend themselves is not vigilante justice, just as an old man carrying a sidearm while he takes a bike ride is not an attempt to lynch the two boys that accosted him while he was doing it.

Point where I advocated lawlessness. Are you saying that people should just let themselves die horrifically, thus enabling criminals to continue to rape and murder, rather than fight back? So basically, you support rape and murder? You don't? Guess what, neither do any of us. We do however, support stopping rape before it happens, and we support stopping murder before it happens.

You want to know why I seem mad this time? It's because you purposefully ignored the following:


it is not a matter of Wild West mentality, or a love of guns, violence, or shooting people.

You purposely ignored it, to state the exact point that I clearly had addressed. If you want respect from people, try not directly ignoring them to keep stating the same argument again, and again.

Understand, anyone on this entire forum would gun down a man trying to harm you. Many of us are former military, including myself. We had guns for years, and not this little pistol bullshit, either. We had shotguns, rifles, and assault rifles with a near infinite amount of ammunition, and somehow, managed not to turn into crazed vigilantes that you seem to believe everyone will become the second they are armed.

[Wind Song]

Go back through that post, WS. Point the exact moment where I mentioned word one about shooting anybody, or allowing vigilante justice. Allowing people to defend themselves is not vigilante justice, just as an old man carrying a sidearm while he takes a bike ride is not an attempt to lynch the two boys that accosted him while he was doing it.

Point where I advocated lawlessness. Are you saying that people should just let themselves die horrifically, thus enabling criminals to continue to rape and murder, rather than fight back? So basically, you support rape and murder? You don't? Guess what, neither do any of us. We do however, support stopping rape before it happens, and we support stopping murder before it happens.

You want to know why I seem mad this time? It's because you purposefully ignored the following:



You purposely ignored it, to state the exact point that I clearly had addressed. If you want respect from people, try not directly ignoring them to keep stating the same argument again, and again.

Understand, anyone on this entire forum would gun down a man trying to harm you. Many of us are former military, including myself. We had guns for years, and not this little pistol bullshit, either. We had shotguns, rifles, and assault rifles with a near infinite amount of ammunition, and somehow, managed not to turn into crazed vigilantes that you seem to believe everyone will become the second they are armed.

First of all, one of the Florida cases involved a man who caught a thief stealing his car radio, chased him many blocks, and then stabbed him to death. He was determined to have been "acting in self-defense". Why didn't this guy call the cops and let them arrest this man instead of chasing the thief, initiating a fight and then killing him.

Last time I checked burglarly was not a capital offense.

[fj1200]

First of all, one of the Florida cases involved a man who caught a thief stealing his car radio, chased him many blocks, and then stabbed him to death. He was determined to have been "acting in self-defense". Why didn't this guy call the cops and let them arrest this man instead of chasing the thief, initiating a fight and then killing him.

Last time I checked burglarly was not a capital offense.

You're missing part of the story again, the thief swung his bag of stolen merchandise at which point he was stabbed in self defense.

[Wind Song]

You're missing part of the story again, the thief swung his bag of stolen merchandise at which point he was stabbed in self defense.


The thief was trying to get away, not "standing his ground". The citizen who stabbed this man to death acted in lieu of law enforcement and just like Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.

Had this man called the cops, they could have arrested the thief, and the thief would be alive and the man wouldn't have been hit by the bag of merchandise.

IMO, this is an example of a citizen taking the law into his own hands with tragic results.

Burglary is not a capital crime.

[tailfins]

The thief was trying to get away, not "standing his ground". The citizen who stabbed this man to death acted in lieu of law enforcement and just like Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.

Had this man called the cops, they could have arrested the thief, and the thief would be alive and the man wouldn't have been hit by the bag of merchandise.

IMO, this is an example of a citizen taking the law into his own hands with tragic results.

Burglary is not a capital crime.

I was just wondering, in your world should there be consequences for someone who keeps a trained rattlesnake on their steering wheel and it bites a car thief? Just asking.

[fj1200]

The thief was trying to get away, not "standing his ground". The citizen who stabbed this man to death acted in lieu of law enforcement and just like Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.

Had this man called the cops, they could have arrested the thief, and the thief would be alive and the man wouldn't have been hit by the bag of merchandise.

IMO, this is an example of a citizen taking the law into his own hands with tragic results.

Burglary is not a capital crime.

The thief was trying to get away? How odd. :rolleyes: The police in no way would have been there in time and be able to make an arrest. Garcia was defending his property and well within his rights IMO and did not act in lieu of LE.

It was an unfortunate occurrence of events but one that the thief initiated. Capital crime? Right, burglary is not a capital crime and he wasn't killed because of it, he got himself killed by attacking his pursuer.

[Wind Song]

I was just wondering, in your world should there be consequences for someone who keeps a trained rattlesnake on their steering wheel and it bites a car thief? Just asking.

That's a silly question. First of all, we live in the same world. If you're saying it's ok to leave a lethal weapon in a car to kill a thief, I'd say that was overkill in the literal and metaphoric sense of the phrase.

Stealing is not a capital crime. Setting a lethal trap for a thief should have consequences if the thief dies from the bite.

[ConHog]

The thief was trying to get away? How odd. :rolleyes: The police in no way would have been there in time and be able to make an arrest. Garcia was defending his property and well within his rights IMO and did not act in lieu of LE.

It was an unfortunate occurrence of events but one that the thief initiated. Capital crime? Right, burglary is not a capital crime and he wasn't killed because of it, he got himself killed by attacking his pursuer.

Here's the thing though FJ, when attempting to make a citizen's arrest, which is your right , you are bound by the same legal limits as a LEO. So let me ask you something, where would you fall if a cop had done the same exact thing under the same exact circumstances? The question of course was rhetorical.

[darin]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3415&d=1335539798


3415

[Wind Song]

And if all citizens are armed, would that make you happy?

[Dilloduck]

And if all citizens are armed, would that make you happy?

No Only the nice ones.

[Wind Song]

No Only the nice ones.


Why don't you describe what you're talking about. "Nice" doesn't really cut it. It says next to nothing descriptive. It's a judgment. We all talk in judgment, and it furthers nothing but strife.

[Dilloduck]

Why don't you describe what you're talking about. "Nice" doesn't really cut it. It says next to nothing descriptive. It's a judgment. We all talk in judgment, and it furthers nothing but strife.

Ok----loving people.

[darin]

And if all citizens are armed, would that make you happy?

Would make us SAFER - happiness is hard to measure. Crime stats would prove the relative 'safety' increases. :)

[jimnyc]

Here's the thing though FJ, when attempting to make a citizen's arrest, which is your right , you are bound by the same legal limits as a LEO. So let me ask you something, where would you fall if a cop had done the same exact thing under the same exact circumstances? The question of course was rhetorical.

I'd have NO PROBLEM myself if a cop shot a fleeing burglar who attempted to swing metal objects at his head in a bag while trying to subdue him. Not a wise idea to try a felony assault on a man with a gun!

[ConHog]

I'd have NO PROBLEM myself if a cop shot a fleeing burglar who attempted to swing metal objects at his head in a bag while trying to subdue him. Not a wise idea to try a felony assault on a man with a gun!

Not wise at all. But the world is full of unwise people. 9 out of 10 times the LE agency would get sued under those circumstance and lose is my point.

[jimnyc]

Not wise at all. But the world is full of unwise people. 9 out of 10 times the LE agency would get sued under those circumstance and lose is my point.

Sued, maybe, but under the facts of the case that WS points to, I can hardly see an officer being reprimanded let alone losing a court case.

[DragonStryk72]

First of all, one of the Florida cases involved a man who caught a thief stealing his car radio, chased him many blocks, and then stabbed him to death. He was determined to have been "acting in self-defense". Why didn't this guy call the cops and let them arrest this man instead of chasing the thief, initiating a fight and then killing him.

Last time I checked burglarly was not a capital offense.

Notice that no gun was involved. He stabbed a guy. In that situation, he was so very clearly wrong. I've never stated otherwise. Again, point out where I have.

Chasing a guy down and stabbing him to death in the street is not self-defense. I would also like to see this article, btw.

Now, let me go over this

Stop someone from raping you by hitting them with a brick= Self-Defense

Shooting someone trying to rape you= Self-Defense

Tracking down the guy that raped you and killing them in cold-blood= Not self-defense



Thank you for disproving your own point about guns. The man in your example didn't have one, and yet was still capable of killing someone. Apparently, guns by themselves are not capable of killing people. People, however, are more than capable of killing people.

Do not put forward another instance of vigilante justice, because I am not advocating it. I am not advocating murder, I am not advocating circumventing the justice system. Maybe if I write it like this, you'll actually read what I'm writing and respond to it, not just rehash the same argument that I am specifically covering as being wrong.


WE AGREE, VIGILANTE JUSTICE IS WRONG. WE ARE NOT DEBATING VIGILANTE JUSTICE, SO STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT ABOUT VIGILANTE JUSTICE.

It is really fucking sad to me that I have to spell things out like that.

[ConHog]

Sued, maybe, but under the facts of the case that WS points to, I can hardly see an officer being reprimanded let alone losing a court case.

You must watch a different new than I do.

Now I don't particularly mind people asserting their rights and carrying guns and even attempting citizen's arrests or not. But A LOT of people seem to be under the impression that it is as simple as ooh shoot the bad guy..... Even criminals have rights in this country... And there are very good reasons for that....

[jimnyc]

Notice that no gun was involved. He stabbed a guy. In that situation, he was so very clearly wrong.

A person who was just robbed is within his rights to chase after or follow someone who just robbed him. Then the person being chased turns and tries to commit a felony assault on the person he robbed. The victim defended himself with a weapon. I'd have to see the EXACT details of the case too, but sounds like he did everything right. I don't think he just chased and tried to kill someone, but ran for his property and reverted to defending himself AFTER the crook tried to knock his brains out with a sack full of metal!

[jimnyc]

You must watch a different new than I do.

Now I don't particularly mind people asserting their rights and carrying guns and even attempting citizen's arrests or not. But A LOT of people seem to be under the impression that it is as simple as ooh shoot the bad guy..... Even criminals have rights in this country... And there are very good reasons for that....

Yes they do, and they give them up when they try to kill someone/cop, or commit a felony assault aka grievous bodily harm. Not only can a cop make a clean shoot when that happens, but even a citizen is justified on self defense laws throughout the country.

[ConHog]

A person who was just robbed is within his rights to chase after or follow someone who just robbed him. Then the person being chased turns and tries to commit a felony assault on the person he robbed. The victim defended himself with a weapon. I'd have to see the EXACT details of the case too, but sounds like he did everything right. I don't think he just chased and tried to kill someone, but ran for his property and reverted to defending himself AFTER the crook tried to knock his brains out with a sack full of metal!

Again, I haven't looked at everything here, but where did the knife come from? A LEO certainly isn't allowed to carry a K bar around and stab people he's trying to arrest, no matter what the suspect does. That's what I'm saying Jim, there ARE rules. There has to be.

[DragonStryk72]

A person who was just robbed is within his rights to chase after or follow someone who just robbed him. Then the person being chased turns and tries to commit a felony assault on the person he robbed. The victim defended himself with a weapon. I'd have to see the EXACT details of the case too, but sounds like he did everything right. I don't think he just chased and tried to kill someone, but ran for his property and reverted to defending himself AFTER the crook tried to knock his brains out with a sack full of metal!

From the situation she gave, it looked like he had tracked the guy down to stab him. But again, I'm trying to get her vigilante justice argument shitcanned at this point, since nobody is advocating for it, and she insists on using it. Also of note, her complaint about guns was moot, since he was not armed with one. It in fact proves my earlier point. Take away the guns, and stabbings will go up, just like in Canada and the UK when guns were outlawed.

[jimnyc]

Again, I haven't looked at everything here, but where did the knife come from? A LEO certainly isn't allowed to carry a K bar around and stab people he's trying to arrest, no matter what the suspect does. That's what I'm saying Jim, there ARE rules. There has to be.

Under WS's story, this was a citizen, not a cop, and he was robbed. Apparently he must have just happened to be carrying a blade, which is legal. He chased down the perp who robbed him, and in the process the perp turned around and tried to swing a bag of goods and knock his brains out, instead of taking it, the victim yanked out his knife and defended himself. Are you stating that a citizen must only use "self defense" with their bare hands?

[ConHog]

Yes they do, and they give them up when they try to kill someone/cop, or commit a felony assault aka grievous bodily harm. Not only can a cop make a clean shoot when that happens, but even a citizen is justified on self defense laws throughout the country.

No, you do NOT give up your rights upon committing a crime in this country. You do forfeit SOME of your rights if CONVICTED of a crime in this country, and like it or not a conviction does not mean "oh he made me mad cuz he swung a bag of metal at my head." Absolutely a citizen has a right to self defense, but that right doesn't include the right to retaliate.

In other words if your neighbor drives by your house and shoots out the windows narrowly missing hitting you, you don't then have the right to go shoot him the next night........

[jimnyc]

From the situation she gave, it looked like he had tracked the guy down to stab him. But again, I'm trying to get her vigilante justice argument shitcanned at this point, since nobody is advocating for it, and she insists on using it. Also of note, her complaint about guns was moot, since he was not armed with one. It in fact proves my earlier point. Take away the guns, and stabbings will go up, just like in Canada and the UK when guns were outlawed.

Of COURSE that's what she said, just like Zimmerman ran around profiling little black kids with iced tea and skittles! That's her rhetoric. This guy chased a burglar to get his shit back, burglar turned and attacked victim, victim defended himself.

[jimnyc]

No, you do NOT give up your rights upon committing a crime in this country. You do forfeit SOME of your rights if CONVICTED of a crime in this country, and like it or not a conviction does not mean "oh he made me mad cuz he swung a bag of metal at my head." Absolutely a citizen has a right to self defense, but that right doesn't include the right to retaliate.

In other words if your neighbor drives by your house and shoots out the windows narrowly missing hitting you, you don't then have the right to go shoot him the next night........

This guy didn't seek him out days later, he stabbed the guy AS he was trying to commit felony assault on him - that's textbook self defense. He didn't run after him with the knife out, unless WS can prove otherwise.

[ConHog]

Under WS's story, this was a citizen, not a cop, and he was robbed. Apparently he must have just happened to be carrying a blade, which is legal. He chased down the perp who robbed him, and in the process the perp turned around and tried to swing a bag of goods and knock his brains out, instead of taking it, the victim yanked out his knife and defended himself. Are you stating that a citizen must only use "self defense" with their bare hands?

Well, let's back up Jim. Before we discuss what can be done during a citizen's arrest. Was this even a LEGAL citizen's arrest? Did the suspect commit a felony? Now the attempted assault MAY have been a felony except that if the citizen was attempting an illegal arrest then the suspect could actually claim that HE was defending HIMSELF when he swung the bag. Do you see what I'm saying?

If the guy committed a felony when he robbed that guy then he could have affected a citizen's arrest. If not, well the arrest itself was illegal.

Your move.

[jimnyc]

Well, let's back up Jim. Before we discuss what can be done during a citizen's arrest. Was this even a LEGAL citizen's arrest? Did the suspect commit a felony? Now the attempted assault MAY have been a felony except that if the citizen was attempting an illegal arrest then the suspect could actually claim that HE was defending HIMSELF when he swung the bag. Do you see what I'm saying?

If the guy committed a felony when he robbed that guy then he could have affected a citizen's arrest. If not, well the arrest itself was illegal.

Your move.

A victim of a burglary most certainly has a right to try and stop a burglar and get his possessions back, unless you can show the crime in that (not rhetoric, actual code). Whether the amount stolen was a misdemeanor or a felony, doesn't change whether or not the victim had a right to try and stop him and get his possessions back (again, not unlawful, unless you can prove otherwise).

Now what's left is what transpired when he caught up to him. Do we have an original article to go by on this, or only WS's warped word? It would be nice if there were any witnesses and a little more background on this. Somehow, even WS reported back that the guy stabbed the burglar as he was swinging the bag at him. Could go either way I suppose, but good luck proving the burglar was defending himself when he was the one committing crimes all along.

I want to look for this article...

[jimnyc]

Here's a Trayvon slanted article, but has me change my stance... Based on the LAW in Florida, they had no choice but to find him not guilty. But it appears his friend alerted the victim to the burglary, then he grabbed a knife and ran after the guy. Video shows him stabbing the guy. He initially denied it, then claimed self defense. He supposedly claims the burglar made a move towards him with what he thought was a knife, but later the police did find a knife on the burglar, but still in his pocket. I don't read anything about the surveillance video capturing the burglar committing any assault. In light of this article, if it has all the facts, I change my stance.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789_miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html

[ConHog]

A victim of a burglary most certainly has a right to try and stop a burglar and get his possessions back, unless you can show the crime in that (not rhetoric, actual code). Whether the amount stolen was a misdemeanor or a felony, doesn't change whether or not the victim had a right to try and stop him and get his possessions back (again, not unlawful, unless you can prove otherwise).

Now what's left is what transpired when he caught up to him. Do we have an original article to go by on this, or only WS's warped word? It would be nice if there were any witnesses and a little more background on this. Somehow, even WS reported back that the guy stabbed the burglar as he was swinging the bag at him. Could go either way I suppose, but good luck proving the burglar was defending himself when he was the one committing crimes all along.

I want to look for this article...

You're wrong Jim. You do NOT have the right to chase someone down to get your stuff back if they steal from you. If you do do so, YOU could be the one who ends up getting charged with a crime. What you DO have is the right to affect a citizen's arrest if you witness a felony. Those are two entirely different things.

See , this is what I'm saying that people don't have a clue that there are rules about such things.

[jimnyc]

You're wrong Jim. You do NOT have the right to chase someone down to get your stuff back if they steal from you. If you do do so, YOU could be the one who ends up getting charged with a crime. What you DO have is the right to affect a citizen's arrest if you witness a felony. Those are two entirely different things.

See , this is what I'm saying that people don't have a clue that there are rules about such things.

What crime is being committed by chasing someone who stole your property? Nevermind the rest for right now, at this point, just chasing a burglar who robbed you - what crime has been committed? You already stated you could be charged with a crime for chasing the burglar - what statute, what code, what precedent?

[jimnyc]

See , this is what I'm saying that people don't have a clue that there are rules about such things.

Until you post code/statute that chasing a burglar down after he robs you is a crime - it appears it is you who doesn't know. But I'll retract my position when you post the law that prevents such actions.

[ConHog]

What crime is being committed by chasing someone who stole your property? Nevermind the rest for right now, at this point, just chasing a burglar who robbed you - what crime has been committed? You already stated you could be charged with a crime for chasing the burglar - what statute, what code, what precedent?

I said you COULD be charged with a crime Jim.

Let's take an example.

Let's say a man steals your wife's coat ( I won't use purse b/c that would be a felony and different rules apply ) and you chase after him, now of course he's going to run. Eventually you catch the guy by tackling him to the ground. Guess what? You're guilty of battery. PERIOD. And if you don't actually intend to touch him at all, why would you even chase him to begin with , so that's a non starter.

[jimnyc]

I said you COULD be charged with a crime Jim.

Let's take an example.

Let's say a man steals your wife's coat ( I won't use purse b/c that would be a felony and different rules apply ) and you chase after him, now of course he's going to run. Eventually you catch the guy by tackling him to the ground. Guess what? You're guilty of battery. PERIOD. And if you don't actually intend to touch him at all, why would you even chase him to begin with , so that's a non starter.

You would chase a burglar to ensure of his location. Once he's gone, he's gone. But you clearly stated it was a crime just to chase someone.

But "even if" - I defy you to find JUST ONE case in the history of time, where the victim of a burglary was charged for simply chasing the burglar, or for just tackling him.

Misdemeanor or felony - it is NOT against the law to chase the person who just robbed you. Of course tons of things can happen when and if you catch up to him, but merely chasing down the perp is in no way a crime.

[ConHog]

You would chase a burglar to ensure of his location. Once he's gone, he's gone. But you clearly stated it was a crime just to chase someone.

But "even if" - I defy you to find JUST ONE case in the history of time, where the victim of a burglary was charged for simply chasing the burglar, or for just tackling him.

Misdemeanor or felony - it is NOT against the law to chase the person who just robbed you. Of course tons of things can happen when and if you catch up to him, but merely chasing down the perp is in no way a crime.

Look Wind Jim stop misinterpreting my quotes. I NEVER said you WOULD be charged with a crime, I said you COULD be charged with a crime. Just like an arrest by the police, a citizen's arrest has rules that must be followed. For instance, you have blindly stated that misdemeanor of felony it doesn't matter. Well, yes it DOES matter.

[jimnyc]

Look Wind Jim stop misinterpreting my quotes. I NEVER said you WOULD be charged with a crime, I said you COULD be charged with a crime. Just like an arrest by the police, a citizen's arrest has rules that must be followed. For instance, you have blindly stated that misdemeanor of felony it doesn't matter. Well, yes it DOES matter.

Ok, fine, you said you "could" be charged with a crime for simply chasing a burglar who just robbed you. That's still incorrect, unless of course you'd like to post that law I've asked for many times now.

[jimnyc]

Look Wind Jim stop misinterpreting my quotes. I NEVER said you WOULD be charged with a crime, I said you COULD be charged with a crime. Just like an arrest by the police, a citizen's arrest has rules that must be followed. For instance, you have blindly stated that misdemeanor of felony it doesn't matter. Well, yes it DOES matter.

And post ANY law that articulates whether or not you can chase after someone who just robbed you - based on whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony. Please, save the back and forth and just post the laws, it'll save us both a lot of time.

[ConHog]

Ok, fine, you said you "could" be charged with a crime for simply chasing a burglar who just robbed you. That's still incorrect, unless of course you'd like to post that law I've asked for many times now.

Again WInd Jim, I didn't say anything about simply chasing someone. BUT give me a few examples of anyone who "simply" chased a thief for a bit then left them be... That just doesn't happen. So common sense says that when I said you COULD be charged with a crime yourself I was talking about more than just a simple chase.

Example, let's say someone steals your hat and you give chase and they run into the street trying to get away and boom they get ran over. You COULD , and in fact probably WOULD be charged with causing that to happen.

The simple fact is that you are not afforded the same protections as police. For example, if the police arrest a person who is ultimately found innocent , well that's just the system, BUT if you as a citizen arrest an innocent person, again you are guilty of a crime.

[fj1200]

Here's the thing though FJ, when attempting to make a citizen's arrest, which is your right , you are bound by the same legal limits as a LEO. So let me ask you something, where would you fall if a cop had done the same exact thing under the same exact circumstances? The question of course was rhetorical.

Then why ask it? I'm pretty sure LE would have handled the final encounter differently if only because it would have been the police in pursuit.


Not wise at all. But the world is full of unwise people. 9 out of 10 times the LE agency would get sued under those circumstance and lose is my point.

That was your point in the first post? I guess it's a crazy world if LE gets sued for self defense.

[jimnyc]

You're wrong Jim. You do NOT have the right to chase someone down to get your stuff back if they steal from you. If you do do so, YOU could be the one who ends up getting charged with a crime.What you DO have is the right to affect a citizen's arrest if you witness a felony. Those are two entirely different things.

See , this is what I'm saying that people don't have a clue that there are rules about such things.


Again WInd Jim, I didn't say anything about simply chasing someone. BUT give me a few examples of anyone who "simply" chased a thief for a bit then left them be... That just doesn't happen. So common sense says that when I said you COULD be charged with a crime yourself I was talking about more than just a simple chase.

Example, let's say someone steals your hat and you give chase and they run into the street trying to get away and boom they get ran over. You COULD , and in fact probably WOULD be charged with causing that to happen.

The simple fact is that you are not afforded the same protections as police. For example, if the police arrest a person who is ultimately found innocent , well that's just the system, BUT if you as a citizen arrest an innocent person, again you are guilty of a crime.

See above for your own words, backpeddler. And if you're going to continue with this "wind jim" crap simply because you can't backup your own statements, then go debate elsewhere. I'm really not in the mood today and will nw leave you to the wolves to pick you dry now that you REFUSED to backup your claims. If something is unlawful as you claim, then there would be a law you could cite, which you either cannot or refuse to. Either way, your bold comments from the first quote is STILL wrong, you're wrong, and you're lame references to me/WS are lame.

You lose.

[ConHog]

See above for your own words, backpeddler. And if you're going to continue with this "wind jim" crap simply because you can't backup your own statements, then go debate elsewhere. I'm really not in the mood today and will nw leave you to the wolves to pick you dry now that you REFUSED to backup your claims. If something is unlawful as you claim, then there would be a law you could cite, which you either cannot or refuse to. Either way, your bold comments from the first quote is STILL wrong, you're wrong, and you're lame references to me/WS are lame.

You lose.

No Jim I'm not going to let you misconstrue MY statement and then demand that I prove what you claim I said. I clearly said that chasing someone COULD lead to you being charged with a crime. I NEVER said that the mere act of chasing someone is a crime.

As for your remarks about me going elsewhere to post. Talk about lame. You name call as much as anyone on here, and think it's quite funny. Usually you're even a good sport when it's done to you. If you're in a mood which is bad enough to cause you to not be able to take what you dish out without telling your posters to go elsewhere then perhaps you should take a day off from the board until you're back to your usual self. Just my 2 cents on that one.

[jimnyc]

No Jim I'm not going to let you misconstrue MY statement and then demand that I prove what you claim I said. I clearly said that chasing someone COULD lead to you being charged with a crime. I NEVER said that the mere act of chasing someone is a crime.

As for your remarks about me going elsewhere to post. Talk about lame. You name call as much as anyone on here, and think it's quite funny. Usually you're even a good sport when it's done to you. If you're in a mood which is bad enough to cause you to not be able to take what you dish out without telling your posters to go elsewhere then perhaps you should take a day off from the board until you're back to your usual self. Just my 2 cents on that one.

I meant go elsewhere, as in debate someone else on the subject, not as in leave the board. I'm tied of debating "dishonest" people.

You made a clear comment, that you "could" be charged with a crime for simply chasing a burglar who just robbed you. You REFUSE to post what crime that "could" be with a statute - because IT IS NOT unlawful to run after a burglar, and to say otherwise is DUMB.

Unless of course, on the tenth time asking you, you can provide a law to backup your claim - which apparently you can't.

And yes, I do name call with the best of them, but rarely start it. But once some weiner eater starts in, I bury them in the ground until they backpeddle and claim to have stated something other than what the entire fucking board can see that they posted.

I'll respond to you when I return from the gym ONLY IF you have posted the statutes for the crimes someone "could" be charged with for simply trying to run after someone who just burglarized them. I won't hold my breath on my return trip.

[jimnyc]

And for the part you conveniently cut out of your last reply to me... This is what we're discussing/debating. I'll await citations to show that what you say is true, and that there is actual criminal code backing you up, that someone "could" be charged with a crime for simply chasing after a burglar that just robbed them:


You're wrong Jim. You do NOT have the right to chase someone down to get your stuff back if they steal from you. If you do do so, YOU could be the one who ends up getting charged with a crime.

[ConHog]

I meant go elsewhere, as in debate someone else on the subject, not as in leave the board. I'm tied of debating "dishonest" people.

You made a clear comment, that you "could" be charged with a crime for simply chasing a burglar who just robbed you. You REFUSE to post what crime that "could" be with a statute - because IT IS NOT unlawful to run after a burglar, and to say otherwise is DUMB.

Unless of course, on the tenth time asking you, you can provide a law to backup your claim - which apparently you can't.

And yes, I do name call with the best of them, but rarely start it. But once some weiner eater starts in, I bury them in the ground until they backpeddle and claim to have stated something other than what the entire fucking board can see that they posted.

I'll respond to you when I return from the gym ONLY IF you have posted the statutes for the crimes someone "could" be charged with for simply trying to run after someone who just burglarized them. I won't hold my breath on my return trip.



I'll own up to misreading your statement even though you weren't clear and it DID look like you were telling me to go elsewhere as in another board.

[ConHog]

And for the part you conveniently cut out of your last reply to me... This is what we're discussing/debating. I'll await citations to show that what you say is true, and that there is actual criminal code backing you up, that someone "could" be charged with a crime for simply chasing after a burglar that just robbed them:

Jim the word COULD means depending on circumstances. I was NOT limiting my statement to "simply chasing" nor did I ever say "simply chasing." I'm not being dishonest , you simply misread my post and now for whatever reason won't admit such.

[jimnyc]

Jim the word COULD means depending on circumstances. I was NOT limiting my statement to "simply chasing" nor did I ever say "simply chasing." I'm not being dishonest , you simply misread my post and now for whatever reason won't admit such.

You stated that one didn't have the right to chase after someone who robbed them. That's the gist of it. I can go back and re-quote your words over and over, but I've already done that. There just is no law that forbids someone from going after someone who robbed them. I DO have that right to chase the guy for a million miles to get MY stolen possessions back. Now, what I do if/when I catch him, that could be an issue, but that's not what you said originally.

My stance: I DO have a right to chase someone who just burglarized my vehicle. "IF" he should try to use physical force against me, I would likely be within my rights to defend myself. A burglar doesn't just get to get away with his/her crime once out of the vehicle, although while still within someones property it's a whole different ballgame - but I certainly don't relinquish my rights once he starts to run.

[jimnyc]

I'll own up to misreading your statement even though you weren't clear and it DID look like you were telling me to go elsewhere as in another board.

If I was telling you to go to another board, or leave HERE in any manner, it wouldn't make sense that I would immediately follow that up with "leaving you here for the wolves to pick you dry". I simply meant that if you were going to go off track with the "Wind" crap, I wouldn't continue to engage you.

[ConHog]

You stated that one didn't have the right to chase after someone who robbed them. That's the gist of it. I can go back and re-quote your words over and over, but I've already done that. There just is no law that forbids someone from going after someone who robbed them. I DO have that right to chase the guy for a million miles to get MY stolen possessions back. Now, what I do if/when I catch him, that could be an issue, but that's not what you said originally.

My stance: I DO have a right to chase someone who just burglarized my vehicle. "IF" he should try to use physical force against me, I would likely be within my rights to defend myself. A burglar doesn't just get to get away with his/her crime once out of the vehicle, although while still within someones property it's a whole different ballgame - but I certainly don't relinquish my rights once he starts to run.

That can be your stance all day long Jim. Doesn't mean it's right. You have no right to chase after anyone. A law COULD be passed telling you you couldn't and it would be a constitutional law (note I said COULD be passed , so don't be asking for example of such laws because I did NOT claim that there are any.)

You have NO right to chase anyone and under circumstances chasing someone who robbed you COULD lead to YOU being charged with a crime.

[jimnyc]

That can be your stance all day long Jim. Doesn't mean it's right. You have no right to chase after anyone. A law COULD be passed telling you you couldn't and it would be a constitutional law (note I said COULD be passed , so don't be asking for example of such laws because I did NOT claim that there are any.)

You have NO right to chase anyone and under circumstances chasing someone who robbed you COULD lead to YOU being charged with a crime.

If there is no law making it unlawful, then by default is lawful. I still see no law at all that can be produced that would show simply chasing after a burglar being a crime ANYWHERE. When you post ANY LAW to backup your opinion, then I'll take it seriously. Until then, a person has a right to their belongings and a right not to be burglarized. Quite frankly, I think it's outright idiotic to think one couldn't chase after someone who just robbed them.

The fact that you can't post ANY law, ordinance, statute, code, precedent - tells an awful lot. You can scream from now to infinity that it COULD lead to charges, but in no way shape or form have you articulated these charges or showed us any code to backup this law that doesn't seem to exist.

But, by your line of thinking, I COULD be charged with a crime if I stare at a passing airplane. Notice I said COULD be charged with a crime, not that you would.

[Wind Song]

Ok----loving people.

That's much more descriptive than "nice". Someone can be a loving person without being "nice" every second.

[Wind Song]

Notice that no gun was involved. He stabbed a guy. In that situation, he was so very clearly wrong. I've never stated otherwise. Again, point out where I have.

Chasing a guy down and stabbing him to death in the street is not self-defense. I would also like to see this article, btw.

Now, let me go over this

Stop someone from raping you by hitting them with a brick= Self-Defense

Shooting someone trying to rape you= Self-Defense

Tracking down the guy that raped you and killing them in cold-blood= Not self-defense



Thank you for disproving your own point about guns. The man in your example didn't have one, and yet was still capable of killing someone. Apparently, guns by themselves are not capable of killing people. People, however, are more than capable of killing people.

Do not put forward another instance of vigilante justice, because I am not advocating it. I am not advocating murder, I am not advocating circumventing the justice system. Maybe if I write it like this, you'll actually read what I'm writing and respond to it, not just rehash the same argument that I am specifically covering as being wrong.


WE AGREE, VIGILANTE JUSTICE IS WRONG. WE ARE NOT DEBATING VIGILANTE JUSTICE, SO STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT ABOUT VIGILANTE JUSTICE.

It is really fucking sad to me that I have to spell things out like that.

What's with the screaming? Take a step away from the computer and calm down.

[tailfins]

What's with the screaming? Take a step away from the computer and calm down.


Don't argue with crazy. You can't win. Notice how I don't argue with you. See how well I keep my composure.

[Wind Song]

Don't argue with crazy. You can't win. Notice how I don't argue with you. See how well I keep my composure.


Good for you. Take it easy. :hitit:

[SassyLady]

Well, let's back up Jim. Before we discuss what can be done during a citizen's arrest. Was this even a LEGAL citizen's arrest? Did the suspect commit a felony? Now the attempted assault MAY have been a felony except that if the citizen was attempting an illegal arrest then the suspect could actually claim that HE was defending HIMSELF when he swung the bag. Do you see what I'm saying?

If the guy committed a felony when he robbed that guy then he could have affected a citizen's arrest. If not, well the arrest itself was illegal.

Your move.

So, are you saying that if a purse snatcher grabs my purse I am not allowed to chase him down and try to get the purse back? That if I do chase him down and we get into a struggle for the purse, and my gun falls out of the purse and he tries to take it away from me, I am not allowed to shoot him?

[SassyLady]

Again WInd Jim, I didn't say anything about simply chasing someone. BUT give me a few examples of anyone who "simply" chased a thief for a bit then left them be... That just doesn't happen. So common sense says that when I said you COULD be charged with a crime yourself I was talking about more than just a simple chase.

Example, let's say someone steals your hat and you give chase and they run into the street trying to get away and boom they get ran over. You COULD , and in fact probably WOULD be charged with causing that to happen.

The simple fact is that you are not afforded the same protections as police. For example, if the police arrest a person who is ultimately found innocent , well that's just the system, BUT if you as a citizen arrest an innocent person, again you are guilty of a crime.

Would a policeman be charged with making the accident happen if they are chasing the bad guy and he runs in front of a car? What is the difference? A person commits a crime, someone chases him (anyone - LEO or citizen) and the guy is stupid enough to run into the street trying to get away with a crime he committed and the victim can be charged? How screwed up is that?

[ConHog]

Would a policeman be charged with making the accident happen if they are chasing the bad guy and he runs in front of a car? What is the difference? A person commits a crime, someone chases him (anyone - LEO or citizen) and the guy is stupid enough to run into the street trying to get away with a crime he committed and the victim can be charged? How screwed up is that?

No, the police have protection from such charges. Now of course if the run over an innocent person or some such they can be charged with a crime. BUT they are generally given FAR more leeway when attempting an arrest than a civilian is.

[logroller]

That can be your stance all day long Jim. Doesn't mean it's right. You have no right to chase after anyone. A law COULD be passed telling you you couldn't and it would be a constitutional law (note I said COULD be passed , so don't be asking for example of such laws because I did NOT claim that there are any.)

You have NO right to chase anyone and under circumstances chasing someone who robbed you COULD lead to YOU being charged with a crime.
Hmmmm. If I am robbed, I have the right to retain my property. That's wholly constitutional. If I break the law, ( say I do so by tying the bastard up and torturing him), then I've broken the law. But to say chasing someone who stole my shit is unlawful is invalid on its face. Scotus has upheld rights to property(w/o just compensation) ; laws saying otherwise wouldn't pass constitutional scrutiny.

[fj1200]

Da VEEP is da house YO.

[SassyLady]

Da VEEP is da house YO.

That just didn't go over my head .... it went over at 1,000 mph. ??????????

[fj1200]

I was welcoming back my running mate for the highest elected office in the land. And I was doing it in the vernacular of the day because it seems that since BO has absolutely zero accomplishments to run on his platform is, "vote for me, I'm cool, I show up at bars in Colorado."

[SassyLady]

I was welcoming back my running mate for the highest elected office in the land. And I was doing it in the vernacular of the day because it seems that since BO has absolutely zero accomplishments to run on his platform is, "vote for me, I'm cool, I show up at bars in Colorado."

Sassy slapping her forehead .... DUHHH!!!

I can't tell you how happy I am that the VEEP is in da HOUSE....I've missed him.


LET'S ROLL!!!

[DragonStryk72]

What's with the screaming? Take a step away from the computer and calm down.

Oh no, that wasn't screaming. I can only assume that you are incapable of understanding smaller script, and get really tired of you repeatedly misrepresenting what people are saying to you, ignoring it, and continuing the same argument again, and again. It's not strength when you pull that crap, it is the most absurd form of weakness I can think of.